ArticleScience advances2022
Rational inattention in mice.
Article in Science advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frugal inference for control.ArXiv · 2025Article
- Efficient numerosity estimation under limited time.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Strategic stabilization of arousal boosts sustained attention.Current biology : CB · 2024Article
- Rational inattention in neural coding for economic choice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Vagus nerve stimulation during training fails to improve learning in healthy rats.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Resource-rational psychopathology.Behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
- The online metacognitive control of decisions.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Barriers and solutions to the adoption of translational tools for computational psychiatry.Molecular psychiatry · 2023Review
- Mental control of uncertainty.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Distributed context-dependent choice information in mouse posterior cortex.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Functional balance at rest of hemispheric homologs assessed via normalized compression distance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Sensorimotor Interaction Against Trauma.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Sources of confidence in value-based choice.Nature communications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Behavior exhibited by humans and other organisms is generally inconsistent and biased and, thus, is often labeled irrational. However, the origins of this seemingly suboptimal behavior remain elusive. We developed a behavioral task and normative framework to reveal how organisms should allocate their limited processing resources such that sensory precision and its related metabolic investment are balanced to guarantee maximal utility. We found that mice act as rational inattentive agents by adaptively allocating their sensory resources in a way that maximizes reward consumption in previously unexperienced stimulus-reward association environments. Unexpectedly, perception of commonly occurring stimuli was relatively imprecise; however, this apparent statistical fallacy implies "awareness" and efficient adaptation to their neurocognitive limitations. Arousal systems carry reward distribution information of sensory signals, and distributional reinforcement learning mechanisms regulate sensory precision via top-down normalization. These findings reveal how organisms efficiently perceive and adapt to previously unexperienced environmental contexts within the constraints imposed by neurobiology.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.